mibi wrote:And I don't think landmines existed back then, I could be wrong though.

We had 'em during the Civil War even!

While land mines existed, they weren't a very significant part of WWI trench warfare. We made the same decision vis-a-vis airplanes.

As far as playtesting, well, perhaps a little farther down the road (tho I doubt my risk set has enough armies to stand in for all the neutrals!). Though any and all comments on the balancing of the neutrals are quite welcome.

The Central power were Germany and Austria-Hungary forces. The allies were mainly France, England and Russia. USA joined the was in late 1917 and hardly mae a contribution to it!!! Russia lost over 1,200,000 troops whilst america lost only 150,00!

Central Powers also whas Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire.Also i think that Italian Campain been trench warfare for some period.Also Serbia have more casualty then USA(almost 400.000)

The Central power were Germany and Austria-Hungary forces. The allies were mainly France, England and Russia. USA joined the was in late 1917 and hardly mae a contribution to it!!! Russia lost over 1,200,000 troops whilst america lost only 150,00!

Central Powers also whas Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire.Also i think that Italian Campain been trench warfare for some period.Also Serbia have more casualty then USA(almost 400.000)

All true. Most of the Italian trenches were around Caporetto on the border with Austria-Hungary.

But given that we're going with a Western Front feel here, and given that the main combatants on that front were Germans vs. an alliance between the British and French, Germans and Allies seem pretty fine n' dandy.

mibi wrote:And I don't think landmines existed back then, I could be wrong though.

We had 'em during the Civil War even!

While land mines existed, they weren't a very significant part of WWI trench warfare. We made the same decision vis-a-vis airplanes.

As far as playtesting, well, perhaps a little farther down the road (tho I doubt my risk set has enough armies to stand in for all the neutrals!). Though any and all comments on the balancing of the neutrals are quite welcome.

Thanks to all who have commented thus far!

Land mines were a huge part of WW1...The no man's land areas were full of them

hulmey wrote:Land mines were a huge part of WW1...The no man's land areas were full of them

Well, they're not a large part of the contemporary literature, their importance pales beside that of the main elements of the map (infantry, artillery, machine guns), and besides, how on earth would you put landmines in a map? You'd need some sort of randomized xml to make it worth your while. Also, the point is to not so discourage attacks through No Man's Land that people wait until the mopping-up phase to make the attempt.

Unless someone can come up with a really bitching and historically meaningful way of integrating landmines into the current map, let's please consider the matter closed, along with discussion as to what properly constituted the Central Powers and the Allies. It's a map, not a history lesson, so let's move on and talk gameplay 'n graphics.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Didn't the Germans use 'penal battalions' to sneak out at night and clear them for upcomming attacks?

I don't think that they would work for this map either.... but I was wondering what made them go in the direction that they took.

Yes, the Germans did have punitive details (the French might have as well, whereas the British were strictly on the volunteer system when it came to dangerous detail). However, I don't see how it would fit into the gameplay, especially since No Man's Land respawns.

when viewing this map you have to look at it from a conceptual. If you are going to go over the wall you will need a good 50+ armies to even have a chance to make it to the opposing trench. Chances are, if you send 50 men across no mans land, only a handful will survive. Did they get blow up by landmines? Tangled in barb wire? Gunned down? Who knows, either way , they didn't make it, so use your imagination.

What can i say Mibi...great work. 1. Machine guns - how far can they fire forward, how many cells in the forward range.2. The rear end of some L shape trenches might do with the re-inforcing boards?3. The red line looks very harsh - is there any way to blend that into the map more so it still defines well but is less obtrusive.4. just a little more space at the legend bottom for no diagonal attacks perhaps

I'm thinkin' maybe you need more shell holes? There aren't even any behind the red lines!Also, maybe make one of the Red Lines Blue or something?I don't know, there isn't much here to criticize.... the map is exactly what it's supposed to be.....

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm thinkin' maybe you need more shell holes? There aren't even any behind the red lines!Also, maybe make one of the Red Lines Blue or something?I don't know, there isn't much here to criticize.... the map is exactly what it's supposed to be.....

Behind enemy lines and you have the trenches, no need for shell holes.

And yeah, there isn't much to criticize, Incadenza and I shot several drafts back and forth ironing out most of the issues before we posted the first draft. Which is probably why this map will sit in the stagnant waters for a while.

mibi wrote:Behind enemy lines and you have the trenches, no need for shell holes.

I was talkin realizm. There's no way shells only fell in No Mans Land. Certianly they were shooting for the trenches too, so they must have even overshot them... I'm not saying shell holes for cover or anything, just for style...

mibi wrote:And yeah, there isn't much to criticize, Incadenza and I shot several drafts back and forth ironing out most of the issues before we posted the first draft. Which is probably why this map will sit in the stagnant waters for a while.

mibi wrote:Behind enemy lines and you have the trenches, no need for shell holes.

I was talkin realizm. There's no way shells only fell in No Mans Land. Certianly they were shooting for the trenches too, so they must have even overshot them... I'm not saying shell holes for cover or anything, just for style...

Given that the foxholes are playable important terits, I can't imagine we'd want to overdo it putting shell craters on basic terits in the front sections. Might be confusing, especially given:

wcaclimbing wrote:Could you provide a clearer explanation of which territories are fox holes, trenches, and bunkers? That detail is confusing me. They are all the same thing to me.

Are you requesting some sort of visual representation in the legend? For the record, the foxholes are the hollowed-out craters in No Man's Land, the trenches are the connected terits with wood shoring that appear in either front and in NML, and bunkers are the grey, well, bunkers.

cairnswk wrote:1. Machine guns - how far can they fire forward, how many cells in the forward range.

Thanks for your comments cairns. Your other graphics suggestions I'm sure have been seen by mibi, but this one's an easy one that I can answer: the machine guns bombard outward to the far end of No Man's Land in the 90-degree arc shown in the wee graphic in the legend.

cairnswk wrote:1. Machine guns - how far can they fire forward, how many cells in the forward range.

Thanks for your comments cairns. Your other graphics suggestions I'm sure have been seen by mibi, but this one's an easy one that I can answer: the machine guns bombard outward to the far end of No Man's Land in the 90-degree arc shown in the wee graphic in the legend.

Thanks Incadenza....obviously something in the legend didn't click that it would be to the end of no man's land....and i guess if i was someone looking at that for the first time i would have to find that out from the xml/BOB....can the text be adjusted to say "forward to opposite end of no man's land" or something similar to make it clearer.

cairnswk wrote:Thanks Incadenza....obviously something in the legend didn't click that it would be to the end of no man's land....and i guess if i was someone looking at that for the first time i would have to find that out from the xml/BOB....can the text be adjusted to say "forward to opposite end of no man's land" or something similar to make it clearer.

Hmmmmmmm... space is a bit at a premium in the legend, but I'll see what I can do:

Current text:Machine Guns: +2 autodeploy, only bombards No Man's Land in a 90 degree range as shown below. Cannot bombard foxholes or trenches.*graphic*

What if it were as simple as throwing an "all" in there: +2 autodeploy, only bombards all No Man's Land in a 90 degree range as shown below. Cannot bombard foxholes or trenches.

Even that, tho... the "all" seems to contradict the whole trenches and foxholes thing.

Another possibility would be : +2 autodeploy, only bombards No Man's Land in a 90 degree range to far side. Cannot bombard foxholes or trenches.

That way the "far side" concept is worked in, at the cost of losing the "as shown below", tho given that the range is shown below, perhaps it's redundant.

I dunno, cairns, either of those work for you?

Personally, I think some of the confusion comes in with the fact that the mini-graphic, by its very nature, can only show a few of the possible bombardment targets. But given the fact that the instructions clearly state bombardments, the 90-degree range thing, and can't bombard foxholes or trenches (especially since no trenches would be in range if you assumed the machine guns only had a 2-terit range) and also given that it's never explicitly said that machine guns have a 2-terit range, maybe we're overthinking this.

Of course, given that you're not the first to ask about the machine guns, we're certainly open to ideas.

yeti_c wrote:Don't need Far Side - you've already said it can only bombard "no mans land".

I agree, but since cairns ain't the first person to express confusion over the machine guns, I'm at least open to the possibility that the instructions can be worded differently... of course, the map is of sufficient complexity that not every possible permutation of misunderstanding will be covered, but given that even recently people were posting in the waterloo thread about not being able to fort off of artillery, I'm confident that there's some wiggle room there.

yeti_c wrote:BTW - the Command structure is the most important of all - as you can use that to create a path of 1's in the neutrals - before "going over the top".